Contribution by Zoe Picton-Howell
In this Scottish case, an application by a father acting on behalf of his young child with disabilities and serious health problems, for judicial review of section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, as being incompatible with provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights was rejected by the Court of Sessions. …
Articles in: Child & Family Law
SM v Advocate General for Scotland [2010] ScotCS CSOH_15 (16 February 2010)
March 11, 2010 | No CommentsPrincipal Reporter v K [2010] CSIH 5
February 11, 2010 | No CommentsContribution by: Jennifer Spence
Court of Session (Inner House), 21 January 2010
Lord President (Hamilton), Lady Paton, Lord Carloway
Mr K, the unmarried father of a child (“X”), born 6 May 2002, applied to the Sheriff for parental rights and responsibilities in terms of section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.36) (“the Act”). Mr K was named on X’s birth certificate …
Khan v United Kingdom Application No 47486/06
February 3, 2010 | No CommentsContribution by Maria Clarke
The ECHR ruled unanimously that the deportation of a Pakistani national who had resided in the UK since he was three years old would be a breach of Art 8 of the ECHR if carried through.
Taking account of the time spent in UK, the lack of ties with Pakistan, the strength of his ties to UK and …
The Impact of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Human Rights of Disabled Children in the United Kingdom
January 22, 2010 | No CommentsBy Zoe Picton-Howell, Solicitor (England & Wales) (Hons)
Doctoral Research Student, School of Law, University of Edinburgh
1. Disability as a Human rights Issue
The UNCRC is the first international human rights treaty to expressly recognise disability as a human rights issue. State parties to the UNCRC must “respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child …
Omojudi v United Kingdom
December 17, 2009 | No CommentsThe ECHR decided that deporting a sex offender who had indefinite leave to remain in UK and had lived in UK for 26 years was a breach of Art 8. The deportation was an interference with the applicant’s private and family life and was not proportionate.
See Times Law Report December 15 2009
Maria Clarke
Subscribe RSS
Comment RSS
